All you umps out there:

I don't officiate many games myself, mostly because i'm too busy playing for 4 different teams, but the other day i was talking to an umpire who told me he never really played baseball, just a couple years when he was a kid, but he's been officiating for 15 years now. We have about 10 different umpires in the league the aforementioned umpire is in and he is, in most people's opinion, the worst of the 10 umpires. My question to you all is, do you feel that experience in playing the game should be a pre-requisite to officiating the game? If not a pre-requisite do you feel it makes a better umpire or is umping just knowing the rules and officiating a lot whether you've played or not? I was just interested in what you guys think, i have no real opinion on this matter. If it's not too much trouble in responding could you please tell if you yourself have played before as well?

I do not feel that it is a prerequisite at all. But it helps when you have played the game to umpire or officiate it. Not that you have to have played very long, but if you at least played at the varsity level of a sport, you can usually understand things about the game that someone that never played would understand. I think it takes someone a little longer to understand the tidbits that go on in the game when they never played. But once you become an official/umpire, you totally have to learn a different aspect of the game. Most players do not know the rules the way it is required of an umpire. So it is one thing to play, but another thing to umpire. But when you understand the strategy of the game, it helps you officiating the game. Just that simple in my opinion.

Peace

not a prerequisite, but
 

playing the game puts you a step up on official who has no experience with the game. For instance, I played baseball for 15 years. I had a fairly good knowledge of the nuances and strategy of the game as well as the ability to recognize certain situations, i.e. bunt, squeeze, brush back pitch, etc. However, that said, all it did was allow me to recognize the situation that was occuring, I still have to rely on my rules knowledge and umpire philosophy in order to get the calls correct.

I played and coached, and now umpire. It helps to know the game. There are times when I can just feel a play coming on, like a squeeze, or hit and run, or steal, because I did it as a player and called for it as a coach, and the count, the inning, the score; the situation just feels right for it. I am rarely surprised by something that is called, and usually when I am surprised it's because I don't understand why the coach did that thing in this situation. Like, why you want to try to steal third with 2 outs in a close game, when the runner is already in scoring position and can't score from 3rd on a sac fly with 2 outs?

Lee Iaccoca was asked many years ago if any good manager could run Chrysler Corporation, or did you need to know how to build cars to run Chrysler. Lee, of course, knew how to build cars. He pondered for a moment and said that any good manager could run Chrysler, but is sure did help to know how to build cars.

I work 4 sports.
Registered in 5.
Played in same 5.
My best sport was football, ...the one I don't work. :rolleyes:
mick

What's the ol' adage?

If you can't play anymore, coach.
If you're to dumb to coach, umpire.
If you are to feeble to umpire, write a sports column.

Seriously, if you haven't played competitive baseball (LL on up), you are missing a beautiful part of the experience. It's one thing to see a great double play get turned, it's another to know how tough it can be or how special throwing a great deuce is. The nuances and intricacies of the game make baseball a marvelous sport. I am a better umpire because I am a player and fan. I still play in an adult league once in a while, work permitting. I see a lot of things differently as an umpire. I enjoy the game in a different way. Playing the game provided me the intuition to anticipate where a play might go or how a player will get stronger or weaker as the season goes on. I also understand the heat of the battle drama a lot more.

we are involved in the most amazing game invented. One man versus one man - yet nine against nine. Oh, and chicks dig the long ball!

Personally, I don’t think you should manage any activity you have no experience at.

I think the same applies to umpiring. A big part of umpiring is game management and a feel for what is about to happen. If you have never played, it is going take you much longer to become a good umpire.

I also don’t get why someone would umpire who has never played ? Every umpire I know, has either played, coached, or both. Why else would you get involved ? If your umpiring just for the money, then like WindyCityBlue said, you are too dumb to be umpiring. If you haven’t already figured it out, we are the lowest paid officials out there. Take all the time we spend preparing for a game, the cost of all our equipment (multiple uniforms on top of protective gear), clean-up after a game, maintenance and replacement of our equipment, and the time actually spent officiating into consideration. You better be doing it for love of the game, or switch to Basketball and Soccer.

Playing doesn't make you a better official in any sport. But I do think that you need to have an understanding of the game you are officiating. This can be done in a number of ways not just playing. Players sometimes are feel for the game officials. Not enforcing rules because they feel they are tick tack.

...well, I *did* stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.....

Re: A different take
 

I would think any long ball to the outfield, fair or foul, where the fielder might catch it and fall down would be one good time to tag up on all bases.

I'll take a crack but after some of my goofs this year not sure I can put myself in even the "I'm a coach of some sort" category.

Winning run on 3rd base.

a) Ball not caught - throw MUST go home. Getting R1 out at 2nd is pointless as R3 will score on such a play. R1 might just possibly provide a tempting lure.

b) Ball is caught - Throw should still be to the plate to stop R3 from scoring if possible. R1 has time to get to 2nd on the throw home if he is on the bag waiting for the catch.

Some validity as well with the tying run on third.

Infield fly.

YOU ARE WHAT YOU ARE.

Those that work hard at their professions usually have good results, and in every profession we have the good, the bad and yes, even the ugly. Just read your daily newspaper. Now, when it comes to officiating, it is no different than anything else.

I officiate in both baseball and ice hockey. One I played and coached, the other I still can’t play. But I truly believe that I am an excellent official in both. I personally don’t believe that playing and officiating have anything to do with each other in the context of this discussion. I have seen excellent players become terrible officials, and terrible players become excellent officials, in both sports. Ninety-nine percent of the time, it is the individual that determines their destiny, both in sports and every other facet of their life. The other one percent, most times truly turns out to be part of the 99.

A good official/manager knows the parameters that they are working under and is able to clearly communicate this to the participants of the game they are involved in. They listen, assess the situation and then make a decision or no decision, as required. They also study the rules and learn tactics (mechanics) that enable them to make better decisions and enforce the rules properly, and as fairly as possible when dealing with the participants.

A GOOD OFFICIAL is usually a GOOD MANAGER and in most cases will be a good no matter what sport they officiate, or what business they are involved in.

Foul ball.

Agreed. No reason to lead off. Runners will only attempt to advance if it's caught.

<i> Originally posted by brunclikk </i>

<b> My question to you all is, do you feel that experience in playing the game should be a pre-requisite to officiating the game? If not a pre-requisite do you feel it makes a better umpire or is umping just knowing the rules and officiating a lot whether you've played or not? I was just interested in what you guys think, i have no real opinion on this matter. If it's not too much trouble in responding could you please tell if you yourself have played before as well? </b>

I played at the HS level. IMO, what has aided me most in umpiring since I played the game is when we as umpires have to judge INTENT.

For example; on thrown balls, in order for interference to be called, we have to judge whether or not the act was intentional or not. IMO, this is where having played the game helps. It also helps in the area of game management, especially dealing with rival teams.

If you played HS ball, we all had those RIVAL games where emotions were high and we did not like each other. As an umpire you have to be aware of that otherwise the game could turn out of control in a hurry.

Therefore, in Summary I would not say it is NOT a Pre-requisite, but it helps in certain instances.

Pete Booth

Here's another...
 

Cincy game a couple weeks ago...

Bags loaded and the foul ball is hit along the first baseline, going out and away. As they were playing a right handed, pull hitter, the right fielder had a lot of ground to cover and the first baseman was fighting a losing battle but running hard. Unbelievably, he made the catch going to the stands. There was no way they would have a play at home and his closest bag was going to be second. The first baseman realized the wheels on first, fired a two bounce strike to third and almost got that guy. They had to call "time" to go get the piano the guy dropped, but that's a foul ball tag up that can happen at almost any level.

It doesn't have to be a foul ball. Right fielder going hard to his left catches one on the run in the deep right corner in fair territory, and then falls down, and slides about 10 feet. If runners on 1st and 2nd are tagging the one on 2nd will surely make it to 3rd, and the one on 1st will make it to 2B if he has any speed at all.

I feel that playing or not playing has no effect on whether you'll be a good official. Playing or coaching certainly has an effect on how well you'll learn to read plays and anticipate action, but it doesn't help you learn the position, learn nit-picky rules (as any official who's explained rules to a coach knows), or how to be impartial.

I started officiating hockey with experience playing, watching, and loving the game. I knew a lot of things about the sport, but the stuff I didn't know was how to be a hockey referee. I also didn't have a clear idea of icing or how offsides was called. Worst of all, I had no real idea when a penalty shot was called for (except in the most obvious of places). Refereeing the game has brought me closer to the game and given me a far greater appreciation for it.

I began officiating football after having been a fan since I was three years old. I knew a lot of terminology and understood a lot of the strategy of the game and the different strategies employed at the pro level compared to high school ball. I never played the sport, although I should have. I began officiating it and learned that I had no real idea how to officiate aside from spotting the ball and calling a few of the simpler penalties. I also had no clue that you could never have more than 4 backs and had no clue how to determine who was an eligible receiver. I now watch a football game and see these things and understand much, much more than I did just a couple of years ago.

And then there's baseball. I've always had that basic American understanding of the game: ball/strike, fair/foul, safe/out, the strike zone, and "Swing batta!" But aside from that, I had no idea of any strategies in the game. I was never a big baseball fan and never played organized ball. All of my experience was playing softball in PE, and when the teacher wasn't looking we would start to steal bases and throw overhand. I had no idea what went into umpiring and how tough the job would actually be. I had no clue what kind of people played the game or what was acceptable conduct on the field. Unlike hockey or football where a referee has jurisdiction of not only the players and coaches, but anybody in the stands too, a baseball umpire's ability to toss somebody ends at the fence on the field (unless otherwise granted by the league/organization). I had no clue what was proper timing in the sport. But I've learned, and I've learned in such a way that I have no desire to play the sport like I had a year ago (although if offered, I'd happily play the outfield or third base). I've learned how to "play" the game as an umpire, and in the last two years I've figured out the strategies of the game and have learned what to anticipate in many situations. While I have a lot of improving to still do, I've come quite a long way from my first game where I saw such a close play at 1B that I stared for about 10 seconds before pointing to my partner behind the plate! That was a learning experience!! ha ha ha!

Anybody can learn anything. All it takes the the drive and the ability to learn it. Prior experience is not necessary if the student has the aptitude to excel.

-Craig

All runners should tag up on an obvious foul fly.

That's not the point. The point was there is absolutely no reason to lead off on a foul fly. The runners can't run if it isn't caught. They should be tagged up ready to go if it is caught.

But the runners in this situation will not be on the base tagging as the ball is touched -- THAT was the question.

Not where I coach. You are not going to attempt to advance on an IFF at any level where the players shave, even if the ball is dropped or allowed to fall. Therefore there is no need to get a lead.

Pray tell "foul ball" folks, just how does the runner know if it's going to be foul or not? In my book, anything deep enough to advance on could be fair in most parks, and the runner should treat it like any other deep fly. Be ready to advance. Be able to retreat.

There are quite a few parks with ample foul ground so that the ball is obviously foul but still in play.

Sigh.

Sounds like the typical coach who doesn't like the answer...."well how about this? How about that? What if...? In my opinion....."

Read the question as posed. The answer is as given. It's really not that hard.

The question as posed was:

<i>"Normally on a fly ball to the outfield with less than two outs, the runner at 1st (and perhaps 2nd) go halfway to the next base to see if the ball will be caught. The runner at third almost always tags up and is ready to go.

"With less than two outs, name a situation where the runners at all bases always tag up and are ready to go?"</i>

And while there may be many fields with ample foul ground, ther are also many without.

Medium depth fly ball down the LF line, near the line. R1 & R3. R1 knows he can't make second on a tagup, but wants to be able to get a head start if it isn't caught. So he goes part way. Ball ends up a caught foul - retreat. Ball fair/caught - retreat. Ball foul - dead - no problem. Ball drops fair - play on and run (may get a shot at 3B on a throw home or a misplay that he could not have had if he tagged up.

Again, a coach who doesn't like the answer...

Perhaps you were confused by the usage of the term "foul ball" and not a "possible" foul ball.

Time to move on coach.

Well, I'm glad this exchange has made all that clear.
 

Now about being able to predict what the players will have been coached to do in any given situation, Peter, you were saying . . . ?

Re: Well, I'm glad this exchange has made all that clear.
 

Peter pretty much works only higher level games that have coaches who understand the game and who coach their players to understand and react properly to situations.

The flaw in his theory is that many umpires are not so blessed. They have to work with coaches who do not understand the game as well. As surprising as it seems this thread shows that there are some coaches who wouldn't be surprised if their baserunners took a lead on a foul fly ball.

Amazing.

I just gave the short answer, Rich. I assumed (yeah, I know) that the meaning would be obvious in context.

So tonight I was watching a MLB game (NY/Detroit) where an infield fly was declared and the runers just went back to their bases and stood on them. But then those ML runners and coaches are too stupid too I guess.

No they aren't stupid, but I'm beginning to suspect somebody might be.

You still don't get it. I saw the game. They went back AFTER the infield fly was called. They initially had a lead. In Bob's, Peter's, Rich's and my scenario they STAY TAGGED UP. THERE IS NO REASON FOR A LEAD. IF THE BALL IS NOT CAUGHT THEY ARE NOT GOING ANYWHERE.

Is this any clearer, coach?

It can't be that hard.
 

I worked a 14U tournament earlier today. For fun I posed Peter's question to five coaches. One was also a Div III head coach, one was also a high school varsity coach and three coached only at the 14U level.

Everyone of them came up with the same answer as Bob, Peter, Rich and I did. Not one of them thought an infield fly situation was appropriate for staying tagged up.

Five for five. There is hope for the coaching fraternity.

When an infield fly is declared, runners don't go back to their bases to tag up. The go back because they know the batter is out and they are not forced to go anywhere. They have the option to tag up, but that's not why they retreat.
There seem to be an awful lot of replies to a fairly simple question. Bob had it right and the umpires who have worked and know the game knew exactly what he meant when he said, "Foul Ball". Of course there are nuances and odd twists and turns - that's baseball. For me, all I'll say is, "Atta boy, Bob"!

Welcome aboard, JJ.

Peter:

I didn't conduct a survey to the answer the question. I ahd already answered it. I posed the question to a few coaches of varying experiences at the tournament to satisfy my own curiousity. I just needed to know if many coaches had difficulty with this concept or just a small select few. Fortunately it appears to be just the small select few.

I made no comments regarding Officiating.com because I assumed (yes, I know it's dangerous) that the coach in question was hired for his expertise in Little League rules.

"They went back AFTER the infield fly was called. They initially had a lead."

Of COURSE they initially had a lead. Everyone initially has a lead at TOP. It's normal and done on every pitch. The tag-up need/lack-of-need isn't determined until the pitch is hit.

And they went back when it was called an IFF didn't they - just as I said - tag up on an IFF.

Good Lord, you really aren't pretending are you? You really don't understand the difference betweem taking a lead on the hit and then tagging up and tagging up immediately on the hit. You really don't understand that only in a foul fly situation do runners have no reason to be any where but on the bag ready to run. You really don't understand that on an IFF there is the possibility of not needing to tag up and runners can and do remain off the bag until the catch. You really aren't pretending are you?

Wow.

The batter is out on an infield fly ruling, the force is off the runners. But the caught fly appeal is still in effect if the runners are off the base when caught.

I do not care if they had a lead. I only care if they are taggin the base when the ball is first touched or caught!

That is what has to be watched by us.

That is why I believe an umpire that has played the game and understands the possible scenarios of each play is better able to BE IN POSITION to make a call.